Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA591266: Native Beach Assessment Techniques for Beach Fill Design"

See other formats


CETN 11-29 
12/91 

Coastal Engineering 
Technical Note 

NATIVE BEACH ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES FOR BEACH FILL DESIGN 

PURPOSE : In order to properly design a beach nourishment project, the condition of the existing native 
beach needs to be determined. Characterization of the sediment grain size distribution and active beach 
profile envelope is needed to properly define volume of fill material required, the design profile template, 
and suitability of grain size distribution of the borrow material. 

BACKGROUND : The native beach is a dynamic morphologic feature that will vary its form and 
sediment composition in the short term, both temporally and spatially. Variations on the temporal scale 
range from short term tidal cycle changes, through wave induced changes, to storm induced changes, to 
seasonal variations, to longer term sea level fluctuations. Spatial variations also may be present due to 
variations in geology of the area, transient morphology (such as beach cusps and bar features) and 
influences of shore protection structures (such as groins). In order to properly characterize a native 
beach, all of these time and space variations need to be considered. Ideally, profile surveys with 
concurrent sediment samples should be collected monthly throughout the year to define the seasonal and 
superimposed storm changes that occur. This amount of sampling is usually cost prohibitive and it is 
recommended (SPM, 1984) that a representative survey and sampling be done during the winter and 
summer. This frequency provides a minimum amount of information to characterize the range of active 
profile changes and grain size distributions expected as a result of seasonal variations. Impacts due to 
short term extreme events or tidal cycles are not captured, but the winter profile should characterize a 
general erosional type, coarse grained storm profile, while the summer profile will characterize an 
accretional type, finer grain fair weather profile. 

Characterization of the native beach can be divided into two interrelated tasks, collection and analysis of 
the native beach grain size distribution and the beach profile. Several recent studies will be used to 
illustrate the utility of data collection and analysis in depiction of the native beach and its use in beach 
nourishment planning. An 18-month profile and sediment collection program was conducted at the CERC 
Field Research Facility (FRF) which detailed the monthly changes of a natural beach and provided insight 
to the storm and seasonal beach cycle (Stauble, in press a). Assessments of native beach characteristics 
at several recent beach nourishment projects also has been reported by Stauble, Hansen and Blake, 1984, 
Stauble and Hoel, 1986, Hansen and Scheffner, 1990 and Anders and Hansen, 1990. 

SEDIMENT DATA : Beaches are made up of a variety of mineral components and contain a wide range 
of grain sizes that vary in both the cross-shore and long-shore directions. While the main component of 
most beach sediment is well rounded quartz sand, many beaches may contain from a few percent to 
almost 100 percent of such components as carbonate material (ie. shell, aragonite), rock fragments, and 
heavy minerals. The grain size distribution at any given point on the beach is a function of the 
depositional energy of the cumulative coastal processes (ie. wind, waves and currents). Usually the 
coarsest material, with the poorest sorting, is found at the shore break plunge point just seaward of the 
backrush, an area of high turbulence (Bascom, 1959, Stauble, in press a). A secondary coarse sediment 
distribution can be found on the top of the summer berm. Finer, better sorted material can be found in 
the dunes and also becomes finer as one moves seaward of the breakers. Figure 1 shows a grain size 




US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center 
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199 


Report Documentation Page 

Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington 

VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it 
does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

1. REPORT DATE 

DEC 1991 2 - REPORT TYPE 

3. DATES COVERED 

00-00-1991 to 00-00-1991 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Native Beach Assessment Techniques For Beach Fill Design 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Coastal Engineering 
Research Center,Vicksburg,MS,39180- 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 
NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 

___ ABSTRACT 

18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF 

OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same OS 

unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) 

10 


Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 





GLYNN COUNTY BLACK SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 


b 


GLYNN COUNTY BEACH SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 


Sample # 
Gravel 


LA35 

LOTS OF SHELL HASH 
Sand 


Sample # 
Gravel i 




Grain Size 


Figure 1. Spatial variation in grain size distributions across a profile at a) the high energy low 
tide/plunge point and b) -3 foot offshore sample on a naive profile at Jekyll Island, GA. 

distribution curve of a coarse, poorly-shorted sample from the low tide plunge point, compared with a 
well sorted, fine grained sample from the - 3 ft. offshore area on Jekyll Island GA. 

Field Sampling : Because of natural variability in grain size distributions, a sampling scheme needs to 
be developed to adequately sample the native beach in both the cross-shore and along-shore directions. 
Sediment samples need to be collected at the same time as the profiles are surveyed. That way, the 
samples can be spatially located and related to morphology and hydrodynamic zones. Generally, beach 
profile and sediment sampling locations are chosen with a regular alongshore spacing that adequately 
covers the limits of fill placement, including control profiles spaced 1 mile north and south of project 
limits. The actual number of profiles depends on cost and shoreline variability. For example, a beach 
with groins and pocket beaches will require more profile lines than a straight unobstructed shoreline. A 
suggested rule of thumb is every half mile, but engineering judgment is required to define adequate 
project coverage. 

In the past, cross-shore sediment sampling often has employed samples taken at specific elevations (ie, 
+6, +3, 0, -3, -6 ft, etc...). It is suggested that samples be collected at morphodynamic zones on the 
profile (Staubie and Hoel, 1986), such as dune base, mid-berm, mean high water, mid-tide, mean low 
water, trough, and bar crest, and then at even increments to depth of closure. By sampling at specific 
morphologic locations, sediment grain size distributions can be directly comparable with subsequent 
surveys. Figure 2 illustrates results from this type of sampling for a winter and summer profile at the 
FRF. The coarse, more poorly sorted samples were found on the foreshore and trough area on the 
erosional winter barred profile. During the summer accretional berm profile, cross-shore grain size 
distributions are less varied but coarse, more poorly sorted samples were still found on the foreshore. 
Finer, well-sorted samples were found in the nearshore area and were uniform both times. 

With no established guidance on determining location and number of samples to collect, Anders, 
Underwood and Kimball (1987) statistically determined the number of samples necessary to accurately 
characterize the beach, based on data collected at Ocean City, MD. They divided the beach into cross- 


2 



CETN 11-29 
12/91 



0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 800 1000 


i 


DISTANCE r*OM BACK5TAXE (m) 



Figure 2. Grain size distribution across a) winter erosional bar profile and b) summer accretional berm 
profile showing seasonal grain size spatial variability. Note nearshore sample uniformity in both plots. 
(After Stauble, in press a) 

shore sub-environments and found that coarser beach sub-environments (ie. plunge point) and beaches 
with coarse sand, in general, require more samples to accurately characterize the native sediment. Figure 
3 provides some general guidance on the number of samples needed per sub-environment (for more 
details see Anders, Underwood and Kimball, 1987, or Anders and Hansen, 1990). For characterization 
of the native beach for beach nourishment purposes, it is suggested (Stauble and Hoel, 1986) that, at a 
minimum, samples be collected at the mean high water (MHW) line area (identified on most beaches by 
the maximum runup swash mark line), mid-tide (MT) area (half way between the MHW and MLW 
samples), and mean low water (MLW) area (at the plunge point where the backwash meats the incoming 
surf bore taken at time of low tide). These three locations provide a characterization of the foreshore 
beach where the fill will be placed and resorted by wave action. If possible, samples on the berm, in the 
trough and in the vicinity of the bar should be added, as these locations also are active 
depositional/erosional areas of fill material. The dune area (where wind blown sediment is deposited), 
and the offshore area seaward of the bar (or bars on profiles that have multiple bar systems, where the 


3 






»M8 

>8 


LEGEND 

MB * Mtdberm (13) 

8 * Berm Crest (36) 

F - M«i-foreshore (35) 
S = Beach Steo (33) 

C = Coarsest Sample 


NUMBER OF SAMPLES, d * 0.25 0. P * 95% 


Figure 3. Plot of samples required in each beach sub-environment, based on mean grain size at Ocean 
City, MD (Anders, Underwood and Kimball, 1987). 

sediment becomes uniformly fine-grained and well-sorted), are of lesser importance when trying to 
characterize the native beach for use in assessing borrow sediment suitability. 

Sample collection consists of surface grab sampling of around 100 g (3.53 oz) of the shallow (less than 
1 ft) depth on the subaerial beach. Offshore sample collection can be done with divers or grab samplers 
(ie. Ponar, Ekman clamshell, Smith-Maclntire). If timing does not permit collection of both a pre-project 
summer and winter sampling, a method described in detail in Anders and Hansen (1990) for collection 
of shallow (less than 6 ft.) cores can be used. The core will penetrate several layers of past depositional 
sequences within the active beach prism. Coarse layers can be related to lag deposits of high energy 
events while finer layers can be associated with fair weather deposition. This envelope of sediment will 
represent several layers of past deposition events and can be used to depict temporal changes. 

Analysis : The following procedures are recommended for sediment grain size analysis: 

1) Air dry field samples and split to around 2 oz (50 to 60 g). 

2) Wet sieve this sample with demineralized water through a 230-mesh sieve (4 <p or 0.0625 mm) 
to separate the mud fraction. 

3) Retain the mud/water fraction that passes through the sieve for hydrometer or pipette 
analysis if mud grain size information is required. If only percent of mud size is required, the 
mud/water mix can be put in a vacuum pump with residue placed on a 0.4 x lO" 3 in 2 filter, 
dried, weighed and compared with original sample weight. 

4) Carbonate percent can be determined by dissolving sand size fraction in a 20% solution of 
hydrochloric acid (HC1). The difference between the pre- and post-weight gives the percentage 
of calcium carbonate (CaC0 3 ). 

5) Dry and sieve the sand fraction using the method described in Folk (1980). A sonic 

sifter is used at CERC’s Coastal Geology Unit (Underwood, 1988) for size analysis. The sonic 
sifter has the speed of a settling tube but uses standard mesh sieves, and results are readily 
comparable to analyses using other sieving techniques. 

6) It is recommended that 1/2 or 1/4 <j> interval sieves (Table 1) be used for sand suitability 
analysis. Use of the method of moments for calculating sediment statistics (see Friedman 
and Sanders, 1978) incorporates all size fraction weight percents in the calculation and 
provides more accurate results. Older graphical techniques (Folk, 1980) only use a few 
data points and are not as accurate in calculation of sediment statistics. 

7) Sediment mean and sorting (standard deviation) are the most important statistical values 


4 



CETN 11-29 
12/91 


and can be used in sand suitability analyses such as fill factor and renourishment factor 
calculations (SPM, 1984). 


Table 1. Various sediment size classification methods in common use. 


UNIFIED SOILS 

ASTM 

MM 

PHI 

WENTWORTH 


CLASSIFICATION 

MESH 

SIZE 

SIZE 

CLASSIFIC 

AT I OH 




4096.00 

-12.0 






1024.00 

256.00 

-10.0 

-8.0 

BOULDER 







COBBLE 


128.00 

-7.0 






107.64 

90.51 

76.00 

64.00 

-6.75 
-6.5 
-6.25 
-6.0 

COBBLE 






_ 









58.82 

-5.75 



COARSE 


45.26 

-5.5 



GRAVEL 


38.00 

-5.25 






32.00 

26.91 

22.63 

19.00 

-5.0 

-4.75 

-4.5 

-4.25 

PEBBLE 

■ 








16.00 

-4.0 


H 




13.45 

-3.75 


H 

FINE GRAVEL 


11.31 

-3.5 






9.51 

-3.25 





2.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

8.00 

6.73 

5.66 

4.76 

-3.0 

-2.75 

-2.5 

-2.25 


I 






4.00 










6 

3.36 

-1.75 


■ 


1 H ■ • 

7 

2.85 

-1.5 

GRANULE 

HI 


■ 

8 

2.35 

2.00 

-1.25 

-1.0 


H 








12 

1.68 

-0.75 

Very 




14 

1.41 

-0.5 

Coarse 




16 

1.19 

i .00 

-0.25 











20 

0.84 

0.25 





25 

0.7 1 

0.5 

Coarse 


N 


30 

0.59 

0.75 

1.0 




40 

0.42 




l . 25 







45 

0.35 

1.5 

Med i ura 




50 

0.30 

1.75 



















70 

0.210 

2.25 




F ine 

80 

100 

120 

0.177 

0.149 

0.125 

2.5 
2.75 

F ine 









1 40 

0.105 

3.25 

Very 




170 

0.088 

0.074 

3.5 

3.75 

Fine 




230 



0.0625 









270 

0.053 

4.25 





325 

0.044 

4.5 



SILT 

400 

0.037 

4.75 

SILT 





0.031 

0.0156 

0.0078 
0.0039 

5.0 

6.0 

7.0 

8.0 


M 









0.0020 

9.0 


U 




0.00098 

10.0 

CLAY 


CLAY 


0.00049 

11.0 






0.00024 

12.0 











0.00012 

13.0 

COLLOID 

D 




0.00006 

14.0 




Composite Sediments : Combining samples from across the beach can reduce the naturally high variability 
in spatial grain size distributions on beaches (Hobson, 1977). These composite samples are created by 
either physically combining several samples before sieving, or by mathematically combining the 
individual sample weights to create a new composite sample on which statistical values can be calculated 
and sediment distribution curves generated. Samples collected along profile sub-environments can be 
combined into composite groups of similar depositional energy levels and processes as seen in Figure 4. 


5 


























Figure 4. Composite sediment sample groups across a profile at the Field Research Facility, based on 
similarities in individual samples and depositional processes (Stauble, in press a). 

The most usable composites were found to be the intertidal and subaerial beach samples, in the area of 
fill placement. After comparing several composite groups, Stauble and Hoel (1986) found that a 
composite containing the MHW, MT and MLW, gave the best representation of the native beach. Post¬ 
fill studies found that the intertidal sand composites showed resorting of fill material, while nearshore 
sample composite sediment distributions changed little over time. This suggests that active-sorting and 
sediment transport occurs on the active beach face and bar area and nearshore area sands remain 
unaffected by influx of fill material (other than the fine well-sorted fractions found on the native 
nearshore area of the beach). 

Seasonal Variability : There can be a wide variability in grain size distribution on a native beach between 
winter high wave periods and summer fair weather periods. This variability can be a problem in 
choosing a representative native beach. The winter grain size distribution usually will be coarser and 
more poorly sorted than the summer distribution (due to the higher frequency of storms in the winter). 
The concept of the seasonal beach cycle is based on the frequency of storm-induced erosion and fair 
weather accretion. Extreme events, such as hurricanes that occur in the summer or early fall, as well 
as mild winters with few extratropical storm events, may cause perturbations on the seasonal cycle. A 
sampling strategy to characterize the seasonal variability should take into account the recent local storm 
climate. An example of seasonal sediment distribution variability was measured at Sebastian Inlet, FL 
(Stauble, et al., 1987). Due to environmental concerns, fill containing 20 % or more of finer than 2.75 
<t> (0.149 mm) material could not be used. Seasonal grain size sampling found that the summer intertidal 
composite native beach contained more than the allowed 20% fines. The winter intertidal composite was 
coarser as expected and contained less than 5% fines. A composite grain size distribution of the borrow 
area (the flood tidal delta of the inlet) fell between winter and summer native distributions. A follow up 
monitoring sampling showed that the fill was resorted and became finer but still was within the native 
beach fine component (Figure 5). Using seasonal sampling can help to determine the range of sediment 
size variability on the native beach and allow for calculation of the suitability of borrow material. See 
the SPM (1984) for fill factor and renourishment factor calculation techniques. 


6 





CETN 11-29 
12/91 


8 SEBAST10H IHlEt PROJECT SEOIHEHT OAfA 



8 6EBOSTI0N !H_£T ROOl 1Z/S/BS 



Figure 5. a) Comparison of summer and winter intertidal composite native beach sand with borrow area 
composite grain size distributions and b) comparison of fill sorting three and five rno:.ths after placement 
(Stauble et al., 1987). 

PROFILE DATA : Beach profile surveys also are important in characterization of the native beach. 
Cross-shore and along-shore variations are needed to identify morphology (ie. dunes vs seawalls, position 
of the berm crest, foreshore slope, bar and trough position and closure depth). These components are 
needed to calculate the volume of fill needed to provide desired storm protection and recreation. 

Field Surveys : Location of beach profiles within the project is dependent on project length and variability 
in beach morphology, erosion control structures and funding availability. The cross-shore length of 
profiles should be from some recoverable benchmark well landward of storm erosion out to the depth of 
closure. The profile should start in an upland area that will have some reasonable chance of being stable 
through time. It is important that profiles reach closure depth to account for all of the active profile. 
Many projects in the past have only had wading depth profiles and much of the fill resorting, as well as 
bar migration, occurred seaward of the end of the profile and therefore was not documented. The land 
portion of the profile usually is taken with standard survey instrumentation. It is suggested that the 


7 



offshore portion of the profile be collected using the sled technique (Clausner, Birkemeier and Clark, 
1986). The survey should be taken as close to low tide as possible to have the largest dry working area. 

Closure Depth : It is important to know the area of active sediment transport on the native beach to 
accurately determine volumes required for beach nourishment. The distance to closure will aid in 
determining seaward extent of sediment movement. Closure at the seaward end of the profile is where 
there is no change in elevation between two successive profile surveys (SPM, 1984). Methods for closure 
depth determination are provided in the SPM (1984) and by Birkemeier (1985). Anders and Hansen 
(1990) found that closure depth varied annually at Ocean City, MD, depending on wave conditions. 
Higher wave conditions moved closure depth in an offshore direction, while during lower wave conditions 
closure depth moved toward the shore. They suggest that closure depth should be chosen on the 
anticipated wave conditions during project life. Extreme events may move the closure depth seaward of 
this point, but determination of an average closure depth will be adequate for project design purposes. 

Seasonal Profile Envelope : Winter erosional beach profiles can be characterized as having concave 
foreshore areas and a well developed bar/trough in the nearshore. During fair weather summer conditions 
the bar moves landward and welds onto the foreshore producing a wider berm, with a lower bar/flatter 
trough. Again the profile response to the seasonal cycle is a function of storm frequency and intensity. 
When trying to determine the extent of the profile envelope, data of sufficient record length to cover at 
least one year or longer should be used. The profile envelope of the sediment study at the FRF is shown 
in Figure 4 , with the characteristic winter bar profile and summer berm profile. If core sampling will 
be used as described above, the depth of the active profile and core length can be determined by 
comparison of depth of erosional and accretional changes. 

Design Templates : Once the closure depth and active profile envelope have been determined, an 
equilibrium profile can be chosen to best represent the project area. This existing equilibrium profile is 
then translated seaward as suggested by Hansen and Lillycrop (1988) to provide a realistic distribution 
of the fill volume. Recent profile studies to closure depth of beach fill performance at Ocean City, MD 
(Stauble, in press b) and Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Stauble et al., 1990) have shown that storms remove fill 
from the subaerial placement area, but transport the sand to the nearshore area. Most of the existing pre¬ 
storm fill material can be accounted for in the post-storm profile envelope and is not lost from the system. 

SUMMARY : Guidance has been suggested on the proper techniques to sample and analyze data on the 
native beach prior to design of a beach nourishment project. Composite sediment grain size distributions 
of the active portion of the profile where the fill is to be placed give the best picture of native sand 
characteristics. Both cross-shore and along-shore variability need to be addressed to provide the data for 
assessing fill suitability. The seasonal profile envelope and depth of closure need to be determined for 
characterizing the active zone of the native beach. Calculation of the required fill volumes to provide 
the level of storm protection desired can then be performed with a reasonable degree of accuracy. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : For additional information on techniques to assess native beach 
characteristics contact Dr. Donald K, Stauble, Coastal Geology Unit, CERC at (601) 634-2056. 

REFERENCES : 

Anders, F.J., Underwood, S.G. and Kimball, S.M., 1987. "Beach and Nearshore Sediment Sampling 
on a Developed Barrier, Fenwick Island, Maryland," Proceeding of Coastal Sediments ’87 . 
ASCE, New Orleans, LA, pp. 1732-1744. 


8 



CETN 11-29 
12/91 


Anders, F.J. and Hansen, M., 1990. "Beach and Borrow Site Sediment Investigation for a Beach 

Nourishment at Ocean City, Maryland," Technical Report CERC-90-5, U.S. Army Engineer 
Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 

77 p. + Appendices 

Bascom, W.N., 1959. "The Relationship Between Sand Size and Beach-Face Slope," Am. Geophys. 
Union Trans. . V. 32, No. 6, pp. 866-874. 

Birkemeier, W.A., 1985. "Field Data on Seaward Limit of Profile Change," Journal of Waterway, Port. 
Coastal and Ocean Engineering . Vol. Ill, No. 3, pp. 589-602. 

Clausner, J.E., Birkemeier, W.A. and Clark, G.R., 1986. "Field Comparison of Four Nearshore Survey 
Systems," Miscellaneous Paper CERC-86-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 
Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 26 p. 

Folk, R.L., 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, TX. 

Friedman, G.M. and Sanders, J.E., 1978. Principals of Sedimentology . John Wiley and Sons, New 
York, N.Y., pp. 78-80. 


Hansen, M. and Lillycrop, W.J., 1988. "Evaluation of Closure Depth and its Role in Estimating Beach 
Fill Volume," Proceedings Beach Preservation Technology 88 . Florida Shore and Beach 
Preservation Assoc., Tallahassee, FL, p. 107-114. 

Hansen, M. and Scheffner, N., 1990. "Coastal Engineering Studies in Support of Virginia-Beach, 

Virginia, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, Report 3, Evaluation and Design of 
Beach Fill," Technical Report CERC-88-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 
Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, 39 p. -I- Appendices. 

Hobson, R.D., 1977. "Review of Design Elements for Beach-Fill Evaluation," TM-77-6, U.S. Army 
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 
51 p. 

Shore Protection Manual . 1984. 4th ed., 2 Vols., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 
Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 

Stauble, D.K. (in, press a). "Long Term Profile and Sediment Morphodynamics: The Field Research 
Facility Case History," Technical Report CERC-XX-XX, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 
Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Stauble, D.K., (in press b). "Beach Nourishment State-of-the-Art: A Review Based on Recent Projects," 
Miscellaneous Paper, CERC-91-xx, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal 
Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Stauble D.K., Hansen, M. and Blake, W., 1984. "An Assessment of Beach Nourishment Sediment 

Characteristics," Proceedings of the 19th Coastal Engineering Conference . ASCE/Houston, TX, 
pp. 1471-1478. 


9 



Stauble, D.K. and Hoel, J., 1986, "Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects, Part II- Engineering," 
SGR-77, Florida Sea Grant, Gainesville, FL, 100 p. 

Stauble, D.K., Da Costa, S.L., Monroe, K.L., Bhogal, V.K. and de Vassal, G., 1987. "Sediment 

Dynamics of a Sand Bypass Inlet," Proceeding of Coastal Sediments ’87. ASCE, New Orleans, 
LA, pp 1624-1639. 

Underwood, S., 1988. "Sonic Sifting: A Fast and Efficient Method for Sand Size Analysis," CETN-II 
-14, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 
Vicksburg, MS. 


10